In the excerpt below, Summers surveys Killigrew's life, his work as a dramatist, and his activities as a theatrical manager.

In the following chapter from his full-length study of Killigrew, Harbage considers several of the playwright's late works as “closet dramas,” pieces that were meant to be read rather than performed. Indeed, the critic judges them impossible to stage.

In the following essay, Visser argues that the revisions that Killigrew inscribed in the 1664 folio edition of his plays were made to accommodate the newly emerging type of venues, and asserts that the “great interest” of the folio “lies in the relationship it demonstrates between the private playhouses of the early Caroline period, and the public theatres of the Restoration and Eighteenth Century.”

In the excerpt below, Reich provides a broad introduction to Claricilla, surveying such subjects as its date of composition, its performance history, and its genre. He also offers a critical appraisal of the work's literary merit.

In the following essay, Wertheim asserts that the alterations and observations written in the 1664 folio edition of Killigrew's works “almost certainly” represent the author's notes for productions of the plays.

In the following essay, Walsh assesses the validity of the persistent assertions that Killigrew was literally Charles II's court jester.

In the essay below, Van Lennep examines a copy of the 1664 folio edition of Killigrew's plays that contains revisions and annotations made by the author himself.

In the following excerpt from a work originally published in 1936, Harbage surveys Killigrew's plays, judging them “entertaining for their sheer bravura and unabashed excess.”